4 ms·
Some people think RIAA’s DMCA notice is not legally valid, arguing RIAA is not the copyright holder and there is no infringing material. Almost all of the lawy
by gamblor956 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.
Almost all of the lawyers at HN, and the lawyers at the EFF, and the guy at Popehat, are all generally in agreement that there was nothing wrong with what the RIAA or what GitHub did. It should tell you something when the people most in a position to evaluate the situation don't see anything amiss.
- jfrunyon 6y agoEspecially when almost all of those people are staunchly against the anti-circumvention provisions.
- tankenmate 6y agoIt would seem your issue is with the DMCA, if so then the way to fix it is to change the legislation; lobby the necessary politicians to get the law changed. If you object to people following the law because you feel they don't hold the same views on the matter at hand, the point is moot, unless of course you feel they should break the law. Which leads back to, if you don't like a law then lobby for it to be changed.
- alien1993 6y agoProblem solved people.
- xtian 6y agoWhich laws have you gotten changed through lobbying?
- barkingcat 6y agoIsn't this exactly how laws are changed in the US? Lobbying has more to do with how the country works than voting.
- xtian 6y agoMy point is that’s a field of political power that even well-off members of the working class like computer programmers have zero access to. You will never affect a law which protects capital interests like the DMCA by writing your senators and congresspeople.
- jacobr1 6y agoSure, but you might hosting fundraising dinners, or making donations the NGOs that do have K-street lobbyist on staff. Both are activities professional-class software engineers have access to support.
- xtian 6y agoI would love to see the lobbying success rate of any NGOs which may exist to repeal laws which protect capital interests.
- noir_lord 6y agoAll the ones I paid for. Signed: CEO's of the US.
- gamblor956 6y agoMe personally? I've changed the laws in two countries through my lobbying efforts, though saying which two countries (and which laws) would be too identifying given that this is my quasi-anonymous account. But on that note, businesses change laws through lobbying all the time. That is indeed one of the complaints about our current system of government: that it is too susceptible to lobbying.
- xtian 6y agoIs one of those countries the US? Of course laws change in response to business interests. The context of this discussion is changing laws like the DMCA, though, which protect capital interests.
- thothamon 6y agoWhen faced with an oppressive law, people are entitled to do everything within their power to deal with it. Changing the law itself is certainly a great solution when practical, but it is not always practical.
- jfrunyon 6y agoMy issue is indeed with the DMCA. Which is why, throughout this entire thread, I have not said a single word against Microsoft's actions. I'm not sure why you replied to my comment.
- alisonkisk 6y agoThey agreed there's nothing illegal, not nothing wrong. 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...
- notkaiho 6y agoThe practice of law and litigation is not concerned with normative or moral questions of right and wrong, merely whether something illegal was committed. It's sad, but it's true.
- maxwell 6y agoYou're unfamiliar with the concept of justice?
- notkaiho 6y agoNo, I'm very familiar with it. Questions of whether a law was broken are not questions of justice. They may say things about justice, or lack thereof, in what the law is or how it is interrogated, but they're not one and the same.
- kube-system 6y agoIt's not sad at all. You wouldn't want a legal process that was concerned with morals instead of law. Morals are not universal; they are vague and subjective. Law is the anchor for evaluating adherence to moral norms we've agreed upon via our legislature.
- notkaiho 6y agoTo clarify, I agree with you, I used "sad" as a shortcut for "as much as you'd like it to be what you say, it's not"
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- woofie11 6y agoOnly that's not what the lawyers at EFF, the lawyers at HN, or others have said. What the EFF actually said: https://twitter.com/EFF/status/1319787243184123904 https://twitter.com/EFF/status/1319787243184123904
- qw3rty01 6y agoEFF never stated that it was an invalid takedown request, just that they believe that youtube-dl has enough legal uses that they think the takedown request was counterproductive.
- woofie11 6y agoOp said "Almost all of the lawyers at HN, and the lawyers at the EFF, and the guy at Popehat, are all generally in agreement that there was nothing wrong with what the RIAA or what GitHub did" OP lied. The EFF never said this. I can't find Ken White ("the guy at Popehat") saying anything similar either, but perhaps someone will post a link. And I don't know what "lawyers at HN" he's referring to either.